Pages

News Around the Globe

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Republic v. Villasor

A
decision was rendered in favor of respondents P. J. Kiener Co., Ltd., Gavino Unchuan,
and International Construction Corporation, and against the petitioner herein, confirming
the arbitration award in the amount of P1,712,396.40. Respondent Honorable Guillermo
P. Villasor, issued an order declaring the aforestated decision final and executory,
directing the Sheriffs of Rizal Province, Quezon City as well as Manila to execute
the said decision. Pursuant to the said order, the corresponding Alias Writ of Execution
was issued. On the strength of the afore-mentioned Alias Writ of Execution, the
Provincial Sheriff of Rizal served notices of garnishment dated June 28, 1969 with
several Banks, specially on the monies due the Armed Forces of the Philippines in
the form of deposits sufficient to cover the amount mentioned in the said Writ of
Execution; the Philippine Veterans Bank received the same notice of garnishment
on June 30, 1969. The funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines on deposit with
the Banks, particularly, with the Philippine Veterans Bank and the Philippine National
Bank or their branches are public funds duly appropriated and allocated for the
payment of pensions of retirees, pay and allowances of military and civilian personnel
and for maintenance and operations of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. It was
alleged that respondent Judge, Honorable Guillermo P. Villasor, acted in excess
of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
in granting the issuance of an alias writ of execution against the properties of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, hence, the Alias Writ of Execution and notices
of garnishment issued pursuant thereto are null and void.

Issue:

whether
the garnishment suit against the AFP is a suit against the State without its consent

Held:

Yes.
The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private
parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimant’s action ‘only up
to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution’ and that the
power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and
properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy
such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements
of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by
law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to
be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate
and specific objects, as appropriated by law. Such a principle applies even to an
attempted garnishment of a salary that had accrued in favor of an employee.

The
State, by virtue of its sovereignty, may not be sued in its own courts except by
express authorization by the Legislature, and to subject its officers to garnishment
would be to permit indirectly what is prohibited directly. Another reason is that
moneys sought to be garnished, as long as they remain in the hands of the disbursing
officer of the Government, belong to the latter, although the defendant in garnishment
may be entitled to a specific portion thereof.